water

Article
Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Egg-Shaped
Sewer Pipes Flow Performance
Manuel Regueiro-Picallo *, Juan Naves, Jose Anta, Jerónimo Puertas and Joaquín Suárez
Universidade da Coruña, Water and Environmental Engineering Group (GEAMA), Elviña, 15071 A Coruña,
Spain; juan.naves@udc.es (J.N.); jose.anta@udc.es (J.A.); jpuertas@udc.es (J.P.); jsuarez@udc.es (J.S.)
* Correspondence: manuel.regueiro1@udc.es; Tel.: +34-881-105-430

Academic Editor: Peter J. Coombes

Received: 11 November 2016; Accepted: 6 December 2016; Published: 9 December 2016

Abstract: A Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model was developed to analyze the open-channel
flow in a new set of egg-shaped pipes for small combined sewer systems. The egg-shaped
cross-section was selected after studying several geometries under different flow conditions. Once the
egg-shaped cross-section was defined, a real-scale physical model was built and a series of partial-full
flow experiments were performed in order to validate the numerical simulations. Furthermore,
the numerical velocity distributions were compared with an experimental formulation for analytic
geometries, with comparison results indicating a satisfactory concordance. After the hydraulic
performance of the egg-shaped pipe was analyzed, the numerical model was used to compare the
average velocity and shear stress against an equivalent area circular pipe under low flow conditions.
The proposed egg shape showed a better flow performance up to a filling ratio of h/H = 0.25.

Keywords: CFD modeling; egg-shaped section; sewer design; shear stress; velocity distributions;
water pipelines

1. Introduction
Egg-shaped pipes appear as a suitable geometry for combined sewer sewage networks.
Egg-shaped conduits present higher resistance against traffic loads than conventional circular pipes.
In addition, this kind of pipe also shows a better hydraulic performance in normal operation dry
weather conditions of combined sewer systems, in which a high percentage of the time the flow
discharge is conveyed by the lower part of the section. In these conditions, egg-shaped pipes present
higher flow velocities due to their smaller wetted perimeter, reducing the sedimentation of particles
and the sewer cleaning operational costs [1]. The resuspension of sewer sediments during wet weather
flows is an important source of the pollution of Combined Sewer Overflows [2], and their control is
one of the main objectives of the integrated urban water management in urban systems [3].
In spite of the structural and hydraulic advantages, egg-shaped pipes are not commonly used
in the construction of small combined sewer systems because of their highest production costs.
Nevertheless, with the evolution of production techniques such as plastic injection or extrusion,
the fabrication costs of plastic egg-shaped pipes can be as competitive as circular plastic pipes. In this
work we present the first stage of the collaborative OvalPipe R&D project that aims to develop a new
functioning egg-shaped plastic pipe that is commercially viable and market competitive with the
300–400 mm diameter circular pipes.
The first steps of the process consisted in the geometric definition and in the hydraulic analysis of
the egg-shaped cross section. The egg-shaped geometry was designed with the objective of maximizing
the hydraulic radius under low flow conditions and the discharge capacity under full-depth or near
full-depth conditions. Once the cross-section was defined, a real-scale egg-shaped pipe was built at
a laboratory facility to study its hydraulic characteristics.

Water 2016, 8, 587; doi:10.3390/w8120587 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2016, 8, 587 2 of 9

Most of the open-channel pipe flow studies were performed in circular conduits. For instance, the
early studies of turbulence developed by Nezu and Nakagawa [4] proposed different formulations to
describe velocity profiles in circular cross-sections. Guo et al. [5] developed new velocity distribution
formulas for circular, elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic open-channels (hereinafter named as conic
open-channels). Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) technique was also developed to determine
velocity distribution in small circular pipes [6]. Nevertheless, detailed hydrodynamic experiments for
egg-shaped pipes are missing.
In order to analyze the behavior of the circular and egg-shaped pipes, open-channel flow
experiments were conducted with ANSYS CFX Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code. To simulate
the open-channel flow in closed conduits such as pipes, a two-phase flow model was developed to
solve the interactions between liquid (water) and gas (air) interface [7–10]. The experimental velocity
profiles and shear stress values were compared with the numerical results, following the methodology
proposed in previous studies [11]. Finally, numerical results from egg-shaped and circular pipe analysis
were also compared with the analytical open-channel flow Manning and Thormann-Franke equations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Egg-Shaped Section Definition

In the first step of the study an egg-shaped cross section was defined with an equivalent area to
a 315 mm circular pipe (300 mm inner diameter). In terms of geometric construction of the egg-shaped
profile, it was possible to use different families of curves and ellipses, sinusoidal functions, arcs,
or specific methods. In the present work, a combination of arcs was chosen in order to build an
egg-shaped cross-section (Figure 1a). This cross-section was defined from three variables: the top and
bottom radii (R and r) and the total height (H). In order to define the transition curve between the
upper and bottom circumferences, the construction method proposed by other authors was allowed,
where the circular lateral arcs have their centers at the same height as the top circumference center [12].
Thus, the r/R and H/R ratios allow the design of a wide variety of theoretical ovoids with different
aspect ratios, which potentially could be used in the field of sanitation and urban drainage engineering.
A set of egg-shaped cross-sections with ratios r/R between 0.3 and 0.9 and H/R between 2.1
and 3.6 were compared with a 300 mm inner diameter circular section (Figure 1b). All the proposed
theoretical ovoids have the same area as the circular pipe. The performance of the pipes was analyzed
by means of the hydraulic radius in low-depth condition and the full filling discharge capacity
determined with the Manning’s Equation for uniform flow:
√
Uav = R2/3
h S/n (1)

where Uav is the average velocity (m/s), Rh is the hydraulic radius (m), S is the slope of the pipe
(m/m) and n is the Manning’s roughness coefficient (s/m1/3 ). According to this equation, a higher
hydraulic radius means a higher mean velocity, hydraulic performance, and more sediment transport
capacity. The circular geometry shows the highest full-bore discharge capacity as it presents the
largest hydraulic radius regarding any cross-section with the same area. Nevertheless, in low flow
conditions the egg-shaped conduit has a lower hydraulic radius. Therefore, the best aspect ratio for the
egg-shaped cross-section should fit a higher hydraulic radius under low flow conditions but without
losing significant full-filling discharge capacity regarding the circular discharge value.
The hydraulic conditions to perform the analysis of the different pipe shapes were a slope S = 0.2%
and a Manning’s coefficient n = 0.012 s/m1/3 , resulting in a full-filling discharge capacity of 47 L/s for
the 300 mm circular pipe. Dry weather flow conditions were calculated using three different rates of
daily average wastewater flow to wet weather flow (1:10, 1:20, and 1:50). Assuming a certain safety
margin, the full-bore discharge capacity was set to a value of Q0 = 40 L/s. The resulting base-flow
discharges were 4.0, 2.0, and 0.8 L/s, respectively. From the whole set of the different egg-shaped
pipes analyzed, the cross-sections with the highest hydraulic radius for each low flow condition and
Water 2016, 8, 587 
Water 2016, 8, 587 3 of 9 
3 of 9

condition  and  maximal  full‐filling  discharge  are  those  with  H/R  =  3.5  and  r/R  =  0.7,  0.5,  and  0.3, 
maximal full-filling
respectively  (Table discharge are those with
1).  The  differences  H/R =
found  in 3.5 and
the  r/R = 0.7,performance 
hydraulic  0.5, and 0.3, respectively (Tablethe 
do  not  justify  1).
The differences found in the hydraulic performance do not justify the commercial development
commercial development of three egg‐shaped pipe sets, so the cross‐section with ratios H/R = 3.5 and  of
three egg-shaped pipe sets, so the cross-section with ratios H/R = 3.5 and r/R = 0.5 was chosen because
r/R = 0.5 was chosen because it presents adequate yields in all conditions. It was found that a typical 
it presents adequate yields in all conditions. It was found that a typical value of H/R in egg-shaped
value of H/R in egg‐shaped pipe design is 3.0 [12], but the cross‐section with ratio H/R = 3.5 has a 
pipe design
similar  is 3.0 [12],
hydraulic  but the cross-section
performance  withits 
and  improves  ratio H/R = 3.5 of 
momentum  hasinertia 
a similar
by hydraulic performance
15.3%.  Therefore,  the   
and improves its momentum of inertia by 15.3%. Therefore, the egg-shaped section with
egg‐shaped section with equivalent target area has a total height of 385 mm, a top radius of 110 mm,  equivalent
target area has a total height of 385 mm, a top radius of 110 mm, and a bottom radius of 55 mm.
and a bottom radius of 55 mm. 

 
(a)  (b)
Figure 1. (a) Egg‐shaped cross‐section definition from variables H, R, and r with a tangent connecting 
Figure 1. (a) Egg-shaped cross-section definition from variables H, R, and r with a tangent connecting
top  and  bottom  arcs  and  (b)  H/R  and  r/R  relationships.  The  best  egg‐shaped  cross‐sections  are 
top and bottom arcs and (b) H/R and r/R relationships. The best egg-shaped cross-sections are
highlighted with triangles. 
highlighted with triangles.

Table  1.  Comparison  of  hydraulic  radius  (Rh)  for  low  flows  (1:10,  1:20,  and  1:50  wastewater   
Table 1. Comparison of hydraulic radius (Rh ) for low flows (1:10, 1:20, and 1:50 wastewater and rainfall
and  rainfall  rates)  and  full‐bore  section  discharges  (Q0)  conditions  in  egg‐shaped  cross‐sections   
rates) and full-bore section discharges (Q0 ) conditions in egg-shaped cross-sections with best hydraulic
with best hydraulic performance. Hydraulic radius and discharges were normalized with circular cross‐
performance. Hydraulic radius and discharges were normalized with circular cross-section values.
section values. 
H/R r/R
H/R  r/R RhR1:10
h 1:10 RRh 1:20
h 1:20 Rh 1:50Rh 1:50
Rh Q0 R
Qh0 Q0 Q0
3.5 0.3
3.5  1.038
0.3  1.038  1.103 1.193
1.103  1.193  0.905  0.934 0.905 0.934
3.5 0.5
3.5  0.5  1.064
1.064  1.125 1.187
1.125  1.187  0.897  0.930 0.897 0.930
3.5 0.7 1.078 1.114 1.132 0.925 0.949
3.5  0.7  1.078  1.114  1.132  0.925  0.949 

2.2. Experimental Set-Up

2.2. Experimental Set‐Up 
A series of experiments were carried out in a physical model of an egg-shaped pipe located at the
A series of experiments were carried out in a physical model of an egg‐shaped pipe located at 
R&D Centre
the  R&D  of Technological
Centre  Innovation
of  Technological  in Building
Innovation  and Civiland 
in  Building  Engineering (CITEEC) (CITEEC) 
Civil  Engineering  of the University
of  the 
of A Coruña (Figure 2). This model consisted of an 11 m long stainless steel egg-shaped
University of A Coruña (Figure 2). This model consisted of an 11 m long stainless steel egg‐shaped  pipe with
R = 110 mm, H = 385 mm, and r = 55 mm. At the beginning of the pipe an inlet
pipe with R = 110 mm, H = 385 mm, and r = 55 mm. At the beginning of the pipe an inlet chamber  chamber was placed,
while a horizontal tail gate was provided to allow the adjustment of water levels and flow uniformity
was placed, while a horizontal tail gate was provided to allow the adjustment of water levels and 
downstream
flow  uniformity of the pipe. Water
downstream  of level was measured
the  pipe.  Water level using
was five ultrasonic
measured  sensorsultrasonic 
using five  distributed along
sensors 
several apertures opened in the pipe. The resolution of sensors was 0.13 mm
distributed along several apertures opened in the pipe. The resolution of sensors was 0.13 mm and  and the deviation of
◦
ultrasonic beam was 4.6 . Discharge was measured using an ultrasonic flowmeter with an accuracy of
the deviation of ultrasonic beam was 4.6°. Discharge was measured using an ultrasonic flowmeter 
±1% of measured values and registered with a data logger during each test.
with an accuracy of ±1% of measured values and registered with a data logger during each test. 
Four experiments were conducted at a 0.2% slope with different filling ratios (h/H) of 0.2 to
Four experiments were conducted at a 0.2% slope with different filling ratios (h/H) of 0.2 to 0.5. 
0.5. Uniform
Uniform  flow flow conditions
conditions  were were established
established  by by adjusting
adjusting  the
the  positionand 
position  andheight 
heightof ofa 
a downstream 
downstream
tailgate. Centerline velocity profiles were measured with a Nortek Vectrino© (Rud,
tailgate.  Centerline  velocity  profiles  were  measured  with  a  Nortek  Vectrino©  (Rud,  Norway)  Norway) Acoustic
Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) with an accuracy of ± 1 mm/s at a distance
Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) with an accuracy of ±1 mm/s at a distance of 5.5 m from the  of 5.5 m from the inlet
chamber. Water velocity was measured with a spatial resolution of 5 and 2.5 mm for measures close to
inlet chamber. Water velocity was measured with a spatial resolution of 5 and 2.5 mm for measures 
the pipe
close  bottom
to  the  pipe and withand 
bottom  a sampling frequency of 25 Hz during
with  a sampling frequency  of 25  Hz 300 s to ensure
during  300 s  that the measured
to  ensure  that  the 
streamwisestreamwise 
measured  turbulenceturbulence 
intensity was within was 
intensity  5% of its measured
within  long-term
5%  of  its  measured  average. All velocity
long‐term  average. data
All 
were de-spiked using the phase-space thresholding method [13,14].
velocity data were de‐spiked using the phase‐space thresholding method [13,14]. 
Water 2016, 8, 587 4 of 9

Water 2016, 8, 587  4 of 9 

 
Figure 2. Schematic drawing of the physical model. 
Figure 2. Schematic drawing of the physical model.

2.3. CFD Model 
2.3. CFD Model
Numerical  simulations  were  performed  with  ANSYS  CFX  software  (Canonsburg,  PA,  USA). 
Numerical simulations were performed with ANSYS CFX software (Canonsburg, PA, USA).
This code solves the 3D Reynolds‐Averaged Navier‐Stokes (RANS) equations [15]. A two‐phase flow 
This code solves the 3D Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations [15]. A two-phase flow
model was selected to simulate the interaction of the air friction with the water surface in partially 
model was selected to simulate the interaction of the air friction with the water surface in partially filled
filled pipes (Thormann‐Franke formulation). In order to calculate the interface between both fluids, 
pipes (Thormann-Franke formulation). In order to calculate the interface between both fluids, ANSYS CFX
ANSYS  CFX  uses  the  volume  of  fluid  (VOF)  model.  In  the  VOF  model,  multi‐phase  fluids  share 
uses the volume of fluid (VOF) model. In the VOF model, multi-phase fluids share governing equations
governing  equations  of  mass  and  momentum  conservation.  The  VOF  model  tracks  the  interface 
of mass and momentum conservation. The VOF model tracks the interface position between phases at
position between phases at control volumes within the domain. For this, volume fractions are assigned 
control volumes within the domain. For this, volume fractions are assigned to each control volume [9].
to each control volume [9]. 
An unstructured (block-structured) non-uniform mesh was selected to discretize pipe geometry.
An unstructured (block‐structured) non‐uniform mesh was selected to discretize pipe geometry. 
To avoid convergence problems at the interface between fluids (air-water), the height of the mesh
To avoid convergence problems at the interface between fluids (air‐water), the height of the mesh 
elements was reduced progressively from 3 mm in the main fluid body to 1 mm close to the pipe wall
elements was reduced progressively from 3 mm in the main fluid body to 1 mm close to the pipe wall 
and to the interface [16,17]. As the position of the interface varied in each case because of the water
and to the interface [16,17]. As the position of the interface varied in each case because of the water 
level, a new grid system was necessary for each simulation. The average mesh size in the whole pipe
level, a new grid system was necessary for each simulation. The average mesh size in the whole pipe 
was ~3 × 106 6 hexahedral elements.
was ~3 × 10  hexahedral elements. 
Boundary conditions were set from experimental flow conditions. At the inlet of the channel,
Boundary  conditions  were  set  from  experimental  flow  conditions.  At  the  inlet  of  the  channel, 
discharge and water level were established to constant values depending on the position of each phase.
discharge and water level were established to constant values depending on the position of each phase. 
At the outlet, the water level was also fixed. The initial condition imposed to the model was the average
At the outlet, the water level was also fixed. The initial condition imposed to the model was the average 
velocity obtained from the experiments. Additionally, a steady state simulation in combination with
velocity obtained from the experiments. Additionally, a steady state simulation in combination with 
the Shear Stress Transport turbulence model was selected for all cases. Wall function was set by the wall
the Shear Stress Transport turbulence model was selected for all cases. Wall function was set by the wall 
roughness that was established with Manning’s coefficient (n = 0.012 s/m1/3 ) for the real egg-shaped
roughness  that was established with Manning’s coefficient (n = 0.012 s/m1/3) for the real egg‐shaped 
pipe. However, the roughness in the numerical model is defined as an equivalent roughness (ks ) which
pipe. However, the roughness in the numerical model is defined as an equivalent roughness (k s) which 
can be estimated as a function of n by means of the Strickler’s equation (n = ks 1/61/6/25). Applying this
can  be  estimated  as  a  function  of  n  by  means  of  the  Strickler’s  equation  (n  =  ks /25).  Applying  this 
equation, the value of equivalent roughness in the numerical model was set to ks = 0.729 mm.
equation, the value of equivalent roughness in the numerical model was set to ks = 0.729 mm. 
3. Results
3. Results 
3.1. Boundary Shear Stress and Centreline Velocity Profiles
3.1. Boundary Shear Stress and Centreline Velocity Profiles 
The shear stress over the wetted perimeter and the centerline velocity profile were used in order
The shear stress over the wetted perimeter and the centerline velocity profile were used in order 
to compare CFD model outputs and the flume tests measurements. Discharges ranging from 3.20 to
to compare CFD model outputs and the flume tests measurements. Discharges ranging from 3.20 to 
19.03 L/s were used, resulting in different uniform conditions of water depth and Reynolds number
19.03 L/s were used, resulting in different uniform conditions of water depth and Reynolds number 
variations. From the experimental data, total shear stress can be expressed as a function of the average
variations. From the experimental data, total shear stress can be expressed as a function of the average 
friction velocity U*av with the equation τ = ρU*av 2 , where ρ is the fluid density (kg/m3 ). The average
friction velocity U
friction velocity was*av with the equation τ = ρU 2, where ρ is the fluid density (kg/m3). The average 
calculated as U*av = (gRh S)*av1/2 , with S the slope of the pipe (%), Rh the hydraulic
friction velocity was calculated as U
radius (m), and g the gravity acceleration*av = (gRhS)2
(m/s
1/2, with S the slope of the pipe (%), Rh the hydraulic 
). The differences between experimental and output
modelling shear stress were less than 10% (Table). The differences between experimental and output 
radius (m), and g the gravity acceleration (m/s 2
2).
modelling shear stress were less than 10% (Table 2). 
The CFD model centerline profiles were compared with the ADV measurements at the
The  CFD  of
middle-section model  centerline 
the pipe (Figure profiles  were  compared 
3a). The agreement betweenwith  the  ADV  and
experimental measurements  at  the   
numerical velocity
middle‐section of the pipe (Figure 3a). The agreement between experimental and numerical velocity 
series was estimated with the root mean square (RMS). RMS < 0.076 was found to be an acceptable fit
series was estimated with the root mean square (RMS). RMS < 0.076 was found to be an acceptable 
for all the cases. In addition, vertical velocity profiles can be used to obtain centerline shear stress as
fit for all the cases. In addition, vertical velocity profiles can be used to obtain centerline shear stress 
as an estimation of the friction in the pipe bottom. In open‐channel flows, this value is related with 
the logarithm region of the vertical velocity profile (0.05–0.2 h/H) following a log‐law approach [4]: 
Water 2016, 8, 587 5 of 9

an estimation of the friction in the pipe bottom. In open-channel flows, this value is related with the
Water 2016, 8, 587 
logarithm 5 of 9 
region of the vertical velocity profile (0.05–0.2 h/H) following a log-law approach [4]:
 
U (z) 1 z
) 1ln  z  + Ar
U ( z= (2)
U∗c  κ ln  k s   Ar   (2) 
U*c κ  ks 
where U(z) is the centerline velocity at the height z, U*c is the centerline friction velocity, κ is the
where U(z) is the centerline velocity at the height z, U*c is the centerline friction velocity, κ is the von 
von Kármán constant, ks is the equivalent roughness (0.729 mm), and
Kármán constant, ks is the equivalent roughness (0.729 mm), and A
Ar is a constant of integration
r is a constant of integration from 
from Prandtl’s mixing-length formulation. In open-channel flows a value of κ = 0.41 is accepted [4].
Prandtl’s mixing‐length formulation. In open‐channel flows a value of κ = 0.41 is accepted [4]. Both 
Both centerline friction velocity and constant of integration were fitted from Equation (2) using
centerline friction velocity and constant of integration were fitted from Equation (2) using a numerical 
a numerical value of Ar = 7.9. Figure 3b shows the visual performance of the
routine, resulting in ar = 7.9. Figure 3b shows the visual performance of the logarithmic 
routine, resulting in a value of A
logarithmic formula and the friction velocity
formula and the friction velocity U U*c results. Note that the figure axes are normalized with
*c results. Note that the figure axes are normalized with the total 

theheight of the pipe and the value of U
total height of the pipe and the value of U *c for each experiment respectively.
*c for each experiment respectively. 

Table 2. Experimental
Table  2.  Experimental  parameters:
parameters:  discharge QQ (L/s),
discharge (L/s), averaged velocity U
averaged  velocity  Uavav  (m/s), 
(m/s),filling 
filling ratio
ratio  h/H
h/H 
(dimensionless), hydraulic radius Rhh (m), Reynolds number Re, average friction velocity U
(dimensionless), hydraulic radius R (m), Reynolds number Re, average friction velocity U (m/s).
 (m/s). 
*av*av

Total shear stress results from the experimental methodology τ and output modelling shear stress τCFD
Total shear stress results from the experimental methodology τ and output modelling shear stress 
τCFD2 (N/m
(N/m 2) (relative errors are in parenthesis). 
) (relative errors are in parenthesis).
Experimental Conditions CFD Model 
Test  Experimental Conditions CFD Model
Test Q (L/s)  Uav (m/s)  h/H (‐)  Rh (m)  Re (×103)  τ = ρU*av2 (N/m2)  τCFD (N/m2) 
1 Q (L/s)3.20 Uav (m/s) 0.034  Re (×
0.410  h/H (-)0.2  Rh (m) 103 )
5.7  τ = ρU 2 2
*av (N/m )
0.684  0.664  τCFD (N/m2 )
(−2.9%) 
1 2  3.20 7.04  0.410 0.528  0.2 0.3  0.034 0.045  5.7
9.5  0.684
0.883  (−2.9%)
0.664 (9.2%) 
0.964 
2 3  7.04 13.08  0.528 0.582  0.3 0.4  0.045 0.057  9.5
13.3  0.883
1.121  0.964 (3.4%) (9.2%)
1.159 
3 4  13.08 19.03  0.582 0.658  0.4 0.5  0.057 0.064  13.3
16.8  1.121
1.254  1.159 (9.6%) (3.4%)
1.374 
4 19.03 0.658 0.5 0.064 16.8 1.254 1.374 (9.6%)
 

(a)  (b)
Figure  3.  (a)  Experimental  and  numerical  comparison  of  velocity  profiles  for  a  filling  ratio  of   
Figure 3. (a) Experimental and numerical comparison of velocity profiles for a filling ratio of h/H = 0.2
h/H = 0.2 and 0.3 and (b) results of fitting Equation (2) to all test using U*c for normalizing. 
and 0.3 and (b) results of fitting Equation (2) to all test using U*c for normalizing.

3.2. Cross‐Sectional Velocity Distributions 
3.2. Cross-Sectional Velocity Distributions
In this section CFD model outputs were compared with the formulation of Guo et al. [5] for the 
In this section CFD model outputs were compared with the formulation of Guo et al. [5] for the
cross‐sectional velocity distribution. Guo et al. [5] proposed a simple velocity distribution model for 
cross-sectional velocity distribution. Guo et al. [5] proposed a simple velocity distribution model for
conic open‐channels without fitting any parameter. Their experiments were motivated by a design 
conic open-channels without fitting any parameter. Their experiments were motivated by a design
for fish stream‐crossing, but they suggested that this model was also valid for self‐cleaning drainage 
forsystems. 
fish stream-crossing, but
The  analytical  they suggested
model  was  tested that
in  this model metal 
a  circular  was also valid
pipe  but for
no self-cleaning drainage
laboratory  data  of   
systems. The analytical model was tested in a circular metal pipe but no laboratory data of non-circular
non‐circular conic sections were available to validate this formulation. Following the approach by 
conic sections were available to validate this formulation. Following the approach by Guo et al. [5],
Guo et al. [5], the cross‐sectional velocity distribution (U(y,z)) in an egg‐shaped or a generic conic 
thegeometry can be calculated as a function of the averaged shear velocity U
cross-sectional velocity distribution (U(y,z)) in an egg-shaped or a generic *av and the centerline shear 
conic geometry can
velocity U*c (Figure 3b): 
Water 2016, 8, 587 6 of 9

be calculated as a function of the averaged shear velocity U*av and the centerline shear velocity U*c
(Figure 3b):    
λU∗ av z 1  z 3
U (y, z) = ln − − U∗av ϕ (y, yb ) (3)
κ z0 3 δ
Water 2016, 8, 587  6 of 9 
where y and z are the cross-sectional coordinates. In the first term of the Equation (3), λ = U*c /U*av is
the ratio of the centerline to the averageλUshear  velocity
 z  1z 
(1.02
3 ± 0.02 range) and z0 is the hydrodynamic
U ( y , z )  * av 
ln        U * av   y , y b    (3) 
roughness length of the pipe wall. This term κ  approachesz 3    the velocity profile at the logarithmic zone,
  0 
as in Equation (2). Comparing both equations, the value of z0 can be expressed through the relation
Ar = ln(kwhere y and z are the cross‐sectional coordinates. In the first term of the Equation (3), λ = U
s /z0 )/κ, resulting in a value of z0 = 0.0285 mm. Furthermore, Guo et al. [5] introduced a cubic
*c/U*av is 

the ratio of the centerline to the average shear velocity (1.02 ± 0.02 range) and z0 is the hydrodynamic 
deduction to the logarithmic equation near the water surface, which depends on the velocity-dip
roughness length of the pipe wall. This term approaches the velocity profile at the logarithmic zone, 
positionas in Equation (2). Comparing both equations, the value of z
from the bottom (δ). The velocity-dip position varies depending on the discharge and the
0 can be expressed through the relation 

secondary currents.
Ar = ln(k This variable was set
s/z0)/κ, resulting in a value of z equal to the surface water level, as no dip-phenomenon
0 = 0.0285 mm. Furthermore, Guo et al. [5] introduced a cubic 

deduction 
was observed to  the 
either in logarithmic 
the numericalequation  near  the  water  velocity
or experimental surface,  which 
profiles depends 
(see on  the  velocity‐dip 
Figure 3a). The last term
position from the bottom (δ). The velocity‐dip position varies depending on the discharge and the 
represents the reduction of the velocity distribution because of the cross-section contour, where ϕ (y, yb )
secondary currents. This variable was set equal to the surface water level, as no dip‐phenomenon 
is the velocity-defect function defined below (yb represents the pipe’s half-width coordinate):
was observed either in the numerical or experimental velocity profiles (see Figure 3a). The last term 
represents  the  reduction  of  the  velocity 
(  distribution 
  because  " of the  cross‐section 
 3 #)contour,  where 
  y , yb    is the velocity‐defect function defined below (y
1 y 1 y
b represents the pipe’s half‐width coordinate): 
ϕ(y, y ) = −
b ln 1 −  
y  + 1− 1−  y  (4)
κ b 3 b
   3 
 1 y  1  y  
All test conditions were reproduced
(y , yb )  
 ln
with  1 
 Guo  
 al.’s
y b et
1  

1 
velocity 
 
 
y b distribution
(4) they were
model and
 

  3     
compared with numerical results, resulting in relative errors under 8% (Figure 4). In order to evaluate
the velocity All test conditions were reproduced with Guo et al.’s velocity distribution model and they were 
distributions accuracy, the discharges integrated from the approach by Guo et al. [5]
compared with numerical results, resulting in relative errors under 8% (Figure 4). In order to evaluate 
were compared with CFD model input values, which were set from experimental measurements.
the velocity distributions accuracy, the discharges integrated from the approach by Guo et al. [5] were 
The differences between both discharges were less than 5% (Table 3).
compared  with  CFD  model  input  values,  which  were  set  from  experimental  measurements.  The 
differences between both discharges were less than 5% (Table 3). 
Table 3. Comparison of CFD/experimental discharges with the values obtained from Guo et al.’s
formula Table 
[5]. Relative errorsof 
3.  Comparison  are in parenthesis.discharges  with  the  values  obtained  from  Guo  et  al.’s 
CFD/experimental 
formula [5]. Relative errors are in parenthesis. 
Q (L/s) Q (L/s)  h/H = h/H = 0.2
0.2 h/H = 0.3
h/H = 0.3 h/H = 0.4 h/H = 0.5 h/H = 0.5
h/H = 0.4
CFD/Experimental
CFD/Experimental  3.20 3.20  7.04
7.04  13.08 13.08 19.03  19.03
Guo et al. Guo et al. [5] 
[5] (−4.4%)
3.06 3.06  (−4.4%)  6.72 (−4.5%) 13.51 
6.72  (−4.5%)  13.51
(3.3%) (3.3%) 19.02
19.02  (−0.1%)  (−0.1%)
 

 
(a)

 
(b)

Figure 4. Cont.
Water 2016, 8, 587 7 of 9

Water 2016, 8, 587  7 of 9 

 
(c)

 
(d)
Figure 4. Comparison of velocity contours and relative errors for h/H = 0.2 (a); 0.3 (b); 0.4 (c); 0.5 (d). 
Comparison of velocity contours and relative errors for h/H = 0.2 (a); 0.3 (b); 0.4 (c); 0.5 (d).
Figure 4.Left data from Equation (3) and right for numerical model. Velocity contours are expressed in m/s. 
Left data from Equation (3) and right for numerical model. Velocity contours are expressed in m/s.
3.3. Numerical Comparison of Circular and Egg‐Shaped Mean Flow Behavior 
3.3. Numerical Comparison of Circular and Egg-Shaped Mean Flow Behavior
Lastly, the egg‐shaped cross‐section conduit behavior was compared against a circular section 
with an equivalent area in order to evaluate its efficiency in partially filled pipe flow. A CFD model 
Lastly, the egg-shaped cross-section conduit behavior was compared against a circular section
was performed for a circular pipe with an inner diameter of 300 mm, which corresponds roughly to 
with an equivalent area in order to evaluate its efficiency in partially filled pipe flow. A CFD model
a standard 315 mm Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) sewer pipe. A series of simulations were conducted in 
was performed for a circular
both  an  egg‐shaped  pipe
and  withcross‐section 
circular  an inner diameter
model.  For of each 
300 mm, which
simulation  corresponds
the  roughly to
same  hydraulic 
conditions were used (S = 0.2%, n = 0.012 s/m 1/3). The tested flow discharges were 1.5, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 
a standard 315 mm Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) sewer pipe. A series of simulations were conducted
20.0,  and  40.0  L/s,  using  more  resolution  for  low‐depths  ratios.  In  order  to  reach  uniform  flow 
in both an egg-shaped and circular cross-section model. For each simulation the same hydraulic
conditions  at  the  analyzed  central  section,  the  upstream  and  downstream  water  depths  were 
conditions were used (S = 0.2%, n = 0.012 s/m1/3 ). The tested flow discharges were 1.5, 2.5, 5.0,
established with Manning’s Equation. 
7.5, 10.0, 20.0, and 40.0 L/s, using more resolution for low-depths ratios. In order to reach uniform
Flow mean velocity and averaged shear stress results are compared in Figure 5 for circular and 
flow conditions
egg‐shaped at pipes. 
the analyzed
Note  that central
the  axes section, the upstream
are  normalized  with  the  and downstream
height  water
of  each  conduit  and  depths
their    were
full‐depth  mean  velocity 
established with Manning’s Equation. (U 0)  and  shear  stress  (τ0)  were  calculated  with  Manning’s  Equation  and 

averaged shear stress formula (τ = (gRhS)1/2), respectively. Egg‐shaped cross‐section pipe presented 
Flow mean velocity and averaged shear stress results are compared in Figure 5 for circular
higher  mean  velocity  and  shear  stress  values  up  to  a  filling  ratio  of  h/H  =  0.25,  which  is  over  the 
and egg-shaped pipes. Note
design  cross‐section  that
depth  for the axes are
combined  normalized
sewer  pipelines  in with the height
operating  condition  of(dry 
each conduit
weather  and their
flow 
full-depth mean velocity (U0 ) and shear stress (τ0 ) were calculated with Manning’s Equation and
regime). For common operating filling ratios of 0.10 and 0.15, the improvement of the shear stress was 
shear stress formula (τ = (gRh S)1/2 ), respectively. Egg-shaped cross-section pipe presented
averaged15% and 9%, respectively. Thus, for relative depths h/H < 0.25 a greater sediment transport capacity is 
expected in the egg‐shaped cross‐section than in the equivalent‐area circular pipes because of the higher 
higher mean velocity and shear stress values up to a filling ratio of h/H = 0.25, which is over the
velocity  and  shear  stress  values.  This  should  reduce  the  risk  of  sediment  accumulation  at  the  pipe 
design cross-section depth for combined sewer pipelines in operating condition (dry weather flow
bottom  and  decrease  the  risk  of  pollution  associated  with  sediment  deposits  [18].  The  circular   
regime). cross‐section had a better performance above a filling ratio of h/H = 0.25, which is outside of the range 
For common operating filling ratios of 0.10 and 0.15, the improvement of the shear stress was
15% andof  9%, respectively.
normal  operating Thus, for relative
conditions  depths sewer 
of  a  combined  h/H <network. 
0.25 a greater sediment
For  full‐filling  transport
conditions,  the capacity
performance of the egg‐shaped pipe in terms of averaged shear stress was only a 5.3% lower than the 
is expected in the egg-shaped cross-section than in the equivalent-area circular pipes because of the
equivalent circular profile. 
higher velocity and shear stress values. This should reduce the risk of sediment accumulation at the
pipe bottom and decrease the risk of pollution associated with sediment deposits [18]. The circular
cross-section had a better performance above a filling ratio of h/H = 0.25, which is outside of the
range of normal operating conditions of a combined sewer network. For full-filling conditions, the
performance of the egg-shaped pipe in terms of averaged shear stress was only a 5.3% lower than the
equivalent circular profile.
Numerical results were also compared with the analytical open-channel flow Manning and
Thormann-Franke formulas in Figure 5. The Thormann-Franke correction coefficients for egg-shaped
Water 2016, 8, 587 8 of 9

sections were obtained in Fresenius et al. [19]. It can be observed that there is a good fit between the
numerical and analytical mean velocities and averaged shear stress. Thus, the CFD 3D-RANS model
reproduces the Thormann-Franke flow reduction due to air friction in the pipes.
Water 2016, 8, 587  8 of 9 

(a)  (b)
Figure  5.  (a)  Averaged  velocity  and  (b)  shear  stress  comparison  of  numerical  results  for  circular 
Figure 5. (a) Averaged velocity and (b) shear stress comparison of numerical results for circular (circles)
(circles)  and  egg‐shaped  (triangles)  cross‐sections  with  Manning  (continuous  line)  and   
and egg-shaped (triangles) cross-sections with Manning (continuous line) and Thormann-Franke
Thormann‐Franke (dashed line) formulas. Axes are normalized with the height of each conduit (H) 
(dashed line) formulas. Axes are normalized with the height of each conduit (H) and their full-depth
and their full‐depth mean velocity (U0) and averaged shear stress (τ0), respectively. 
mean velocity (U0 ) and averaged shear stress (τ0 ), respectively.
Numerical  results  were  also  compared  with  the  analytical  open‐channel  flow  Manning  and 
Thormann‐Franke formulas in Figure 5. The Thormann‐Franke correction coefficients for egg‐shaped 
4. Conclusions
sections were obtained in Fresenius et al. [19]. It can be observed that there is a good fit between the 
Within the framework of an R&D project a new egg-shaped cross-sectional pipe for small
numerical and analytical mean velocities and averaged shear stress. Thus, the CFD 3D‐RANS model 
combined sewer systems was defined and analyzed. The geometric definition resulted from an analysis
reproduces the Thormann‐Franke flow reduction due to air friction in the pipes. 
of dry-weather flow conditions in sewers. As the main source of pollution in low-flow conditions
is the4. Conclusions 
sedimentation at the bottom of pipes, egg-shaped pipes will improve the transport of solids
because this section
Within  the presents
framework a lower
of  an hydraulic radius
R&D  project  thanegg‐shaped 
a  new  standard circular pipes during
cross‐sectional  pipe  for dry weather
small 
flow conditions.
combined  sewer  systems  was  defined  and  analyzed.  The  geometric  definition  resulted  from  an 
To studyof 
analysis  thedry‐weather 
hydraulic characteristics
flow  conditions  ofin 
the egg-shaped
sewers.  As  the pipe,
main asource 
CFD model was developed
of  pollution  so that
in  low‐flow 
conditions is the sedimentation at the bottom of pipes, egg‐shaped pipes will improve the transport 
the egg-shaped profile could be compared with an equivalent-area circular section. The CFD model
of solids because this section presents a lower hydraulic radius than standard circular pipes during 
was validated with a set of experiments in an egg-shaped cross-section metal pipe. Velocity profiles and
dry weather flow conditions. 
shear stress were used to compare the numerical model and the experimental results, obtaining a good
To study the hydraulic characteristics of the egg‐shaped pipe, a CFD model was developed so 
agreement. Furthermore, the numerical velocity distributions were compared with an experimental
that  the  egg‐shaped  profile  could  be  compared  with  an  equivalent‐area  circular  section.  The  CFD 
formulation for analytic geometries resulting in a satisfactory concordance.
model was validated with a set of experiments in an egg‐shaped cross‐section metal pipe. Velocity 
Once the hydraulic characteristics of the egg-shaped cross-section were analyzed, a circular
profiles and shear stress were used to compare the numerical model and the experimental results, 
pipe with an equivalent area was modeled. Several discharge conditions were simulated mainly for
obtaining a good agreement. Furthermore, the numerical velocity distributions were compared with 
low-depth ratios. At the same time, numerical results were compared with analytical Manning and
an experimental formulation for analytic geometries resulting in a satisfactory concordance. 
Thormann-Franke open-channel flow formulas. It was proved that egg-shaped cross-section pipes
Once the hydraulic characteristics of the egg‐shaped cross‐section were analyzed, a circular pipe with 
an  better
present equivalent  area  was 
hydraulic modeled.  Several 
characteristics discharge  conditions 
for dry-weather flows upwere  simulated 
to h/H = 0.25mainly 
fillingfor  low‐depth 
ratio in terms of
meanratios. At the same time, numerical results were compared with analytical Manning and Thormann‐
velocities and averaged shear stress values. The results of this study suggest that egg-shaped
Franke  open‐channel 
cross-section pipes may flow  formulas.  It  was 
be competitive withproved  that  egg‐shaped 
conventional circularcross‐section 
pipes for the pipes  present 
design better 
of combined
hydraulic characteristics for dry‐weather flows up to h/H = 0.25 filling ratio in terms of mean velocities 
sewer systems.
and averaged shear stress values. The results of this study suggest that egg‐shaped cross‐section pipes 
may be competitive with conventional circular pipes for the design of combined sewer systems. 
Acknowledgments: This study was funded by the Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI)
through the FEDER-INNTERCONECTA project “OvalPipe: Desarrollo de tuberías ovoides para la mejora de la
Acknowledgments: This study was funded by the Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI) 
eficiencia las redes de alcantarillado” (Ref. ITC 20133052) powered by companies ABN PIPE SYSTEMS S.L.U.,
through the FEDER‐INNTERCONECTA project “OvalPipe: Desarrollo de tuberías ovoides para la mejora de la 
EMALCSA, EDAR Bens S.A. and M. Blanco S.L., and by the MINECO and FEDER project “SEDUNIT: Análisis de
los procesos de acumulación, erosión y transporte de sedimentos cohesivos en sistemas de saneamiento unitario”
eficiencia las redes de alcantarillado” (Ref. ITC 20133052) powered by companies ABN PIPE SYSTEMS S.L.U., 
(Ref. CGL2015-69094-R). The authors would also like to thank to María Bermúdez and Luis Cea for their assistance
EMALCSA, EDAR Bens S.A. and M. Blanco S.L., and by the MINECO and FEDER project “SEDUNIT: Análisis 
in reviewing the manuscript.
de  los  procesos  de  acumulación,  erosión  y  transporte  de  sedimentos  cohesivos  en  sistemas  de  saneamiento 
Water 2016, 8, 587 9 of 9

Author Contributions: Jerónimo Puertas, Joaquín Suárez and Jose Anta conceived and designed the experiments;
Juan Naves and Manuel Regueiro-Picallo performed the experiments and they analyzed the data; Jose Anta and
Manuel Regueiro-Picallo wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the
decision to publish the results.

References
1. Butler, D.; Davies, J. Urban Drainage, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004.
2. Suarez, J.; Puertas, J. Determination of COD, BOD, and suspended solids loads during combined sewer
overflow (CSO) events in some combined catchments in Spain. Ecol. Eng. 2005, 24, 199–217. [CrossRef]
3. Suarez, J.; Puertas, J.; Anta, J.; Jacome, A.; Alvarez-Campana, J.M. Gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos
en el sistema agua urbana: Desarrollo Urbano Sensible al Agua como enfoque estratégico. Ingeniería Agua
2014, 18, 111–123.
4. Nezu, I.; Nakagawa, H. Turbulence in Open-Channel Flows; A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1993.
5. Guo, J.; Mohebbi, A.; Zhai, Y.; Clark, S.P. Turbulent velocity distribution with dip phenomenon in conic
open channels. J. Hydraul. Res. 2015, 53, 73–82. [CrossRef]
6. Yoon, J.I.; Sung, J.; Ho Lee, M. Velocity profiles and friction coefficients in circular open channels.
J. Hydraul. Res. 2012, 50, 304–311. [CrossRef]
7. Newton, C.H.; Behnia, M. Numerical calculation of turbulent stratified gas–liquid pipe flows. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 2000, 26, 327–337. [CrossRef]
8. Ghorai, S.; Nigam, K.D.P. CFD modeling of flow profiles and interfacial phenomena in two-phase flow pipes.
Chem. Eng. Process. 2006, 45, 55–65. [CrossRef]
9. De Schepper, S.C.K.; Heynderickx, G.J.; Marin, G.B. CFD modeling of all gas-liquid and vapor-liquid flow
regimes predicted by Baker chart. Chem. Eng. J. 2008, 138, 349–357. [CrossRef]
10. Bhramara, P.; Rao, V.D.; Sharma, K.V.; Reddy, T.K.K. CFD Analysis of Two Phase Flow in a Horizontal
Pipe–Prediction of Pressure Drop. Momentum 2009, 10, 476–482.
11. Berlamont, J.E.; Trouw, K.; Luyckx, G. Shear stress distribution in partially filled pipes. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2003,
129, 697–705. [CrossRef]
12. Hager, W.H. Wastewater Hydraulics: Theory and Practice; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010.
13. Goring, D.G.; Nikora, V.I. Despiking Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter Data. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2002, 128, 117–126.
[CrossRef]
14. Cea, L.; Puertas, J.; Pena, L. Velocity measurements on highly turbulent free surface flow using ADV.
Exp. Fluids 2007, 42, 333–348. [CrossRef]
15. ANSYS CFX. ANSYS CFX-Solver Theory Guide; ANSYS CFX Release: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2012; Volume 11,
pp. 69–118.
16. Lun, I.; Calay, R.K.; Holdo, A.E. Modelling two-phase flows using CFD. Appl. Energy 1996, 53, 299–314.
[CrossRef]
17. Vallée, C.; Höhne, T.; Prasser, H.M.; Sühnel, T. Experimental investigation and CFD simulation of horizontal
stratified two-phase flow phenomena. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2008, 238, 637–646.
18. Ashley, R.; Bertrand-Krajewski, J.L.; Hvitved-Jacobsen, T.; Verbanck, M. Solids in Sewers; Scientific & Technical
Report 14; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2004.
19. Fresenius, W.; Schneider, W.; Böhnke, B.; Pöppinghaus, K.M. Manual de Disposición de Aguas Residuales:
Origen, Descarga, Tratamiento y Análisis de las Aguas Residuales; CEPIS: Lima, Peru, 1991.

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).